Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching

Page 1 of 5

Reflective journal, a case of my teaching Table of Contents Introduction 1 Narrative of the learning session 1 Evaluation of teaching and discussion of ideas raised in the course 2 Teaching on multiple levels 2 Pedagogical content knowledge 3 How learning was monitored 3 Current thoughts on teaching practice 4 References 5 Introduction This case study explores a learning session, which took place towards the end of my

placement in semester 1 this year. It begins with a narrative of the learning session and

an evaluation of teaching. Then follows an indication of how learning was monitored

before the case concludes with a discussion of my current thoughts on teaching

practice.

Narrative of the learning session I had been teaching a unit on separating mixtures to year 7 science students for about a

month. In this learning session, students devised and ran a practical to separate a

mixture of iron filings, sand, bark, salt and gravel. As a class, we brainstormed a general

approach. First we discussed the mixtures components, to help decide which

separation techniques would be appropriate and whether we needed to perform the

techniques in any specific order. Questions I used to drive the discussion included:

Are any of the substances soluble?

What is a key difference between bark and sand?

Weve decided were going to add water to make the salt dissolve, the sand sink and

the bark float. Will it be easier to use magnetic separation for the iron filings before or

after we add the water?

Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching

Page 2 of 5

The lesson alternated between whole class discussion and small group work as the

students carried out each separation technique and then came back to their desks to

reflect on what they had done and to discuss the next technique. Students suggestions

were trialed in front of the whole class. For example, one student thought we could add

water first and then perform magnetic separation to remove the iron filings. After trying it

out, he realised that magnetic separation would work better on the original dry mixture.

While the groups were performing their separation techniques, I roamed the classroom,

probing students understanding of what they were doing and assisting as needed. After

finally evaporating the water, which had been added to the mixture, all the groups had

separated the five components of the mixture with differing levels of purity. We

discussed ways in which we could have improved our results, for example by repeating

magnetic separation to remove even more iron filings.

Evaluation of teaching and discussion of ideas raised in the course

Teaching on multiple levels

Considering this was my first foray into teaching high school science, I think this

learning session was quite successful. One idea that has been suggested in this

General Science unit is learning to teach on multiple levels (Keast & Marangio, 2014).

In the learning session described above I was operating on several levels. On the

surface, there was the lesson content; getting the students to design and implement

their own practical. This worked well and the process of the practical evolved organically

from class discussions.

On another level, at the same time as I was teaching the whole class, I sought to

individualise my teaching to match the students personalities, strengths and

challenges. For example there was one student, who had missed many lessons and

who had a tendency to be disengaged when in the classroom. I purposefully involved

this student by asking him to be the class scribe and asking him to assist with some of

the separation techniques trialed in front of the class. There was another student, who

struggles with low self esteem. I specifically chose relevant questions, which I knew he

could answer. In her comments, my mentor wrote You have really boosted Js

confidence and encouraged him along the way (J. Nour, personal communication, May,

Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching

Page 3 of 5

22, 2014). Using this approach, a normally disengaged and disinterested student

became an active member of his practical group.

On yet another level, I was experimenting with the way I could favourably influence the

class dynamic by the way I grouped the students and the way I worked with the groups.

In some cases this was no more than an encouraging word, in others it involved

providing assistance to keep groups and the class on track.

Pedagogical content knowledge

Another important idea of teaching and learning suggested in the course is the concept

of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Lee Shulman who introduced the idea of PCK

to the learning community in the 1980s defined PCK as that special amalgam of

content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form

of professional understanding (Shulman, 1987 as cited in Keast, 2014, slide 9). One

aspect of PCK, which was introduced in the unit is the idea that it takes time to develop

PCK and that one way to develop PCK is by teaching the same material to different

classes using different strategies. (Keast, 2014). The learning experience described

here gave me a glimpse of this process because I taught the same material to three

year 7 classes. For example, the first time I taught the lesson, we brainstormed the

whole process of all the separating techniques needed to separate the mixture. The

groups then went ahead and attempted the entire practical. The resultant confusion

showed me that I needed to break the practical down into steps, as described above.

Thus, both my classroom management and my instructional models and strategies were

improved through teaching the same material to different classes. This led to an

improvement of my general pedagogical knowledge, which Morine-Dershimmer and

Kent (1999) have identified as part of PCK.

How learning was monitored Learning was monitored during the lesson through my interactions with the class and

through my interactions with the groups and individuals as they conducted the practical.

This is still an aspect of my teaching, however, which needs improving. While I can say

that as a class, the students understood what they were doing. I could not with certainty

say that the learning of each student was effectively monitored during the lesson. This is

perhaps another of the multiple levels, which will take time to develop.

Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching

Page 4 of 5

Current thoughts on teaching practice The theoretical framework that informs my teaching practice at this time has been

succinctly stated as teaching is problematic (Loughran, 2010). On the one hand, so

many of the ideas, which have been put forward in this course such as telling not being

teaching, constructivism and the importance of PCK resonate with me, and I tried to

implement and/or develop them on my teaching rounds. Im very interested in

investigating prior knowledge and operating within students zone of proximal

development by identifying the difference between what a learner can do without help

and what he or she can do with help (Nagel, 2013). On the other hand, in my teaching

rounds, I observed a great deal of transmissive teaching as teachers seemed bound by

curricular and time constraints to get through the material. Maybe I wasnt fortunate

enough to observe a teacher with advanced PCK. Nevertheless, I will enter the

workforce as a teacher who believes that every student is capable of learning and that

my job is to facilitate that learning. I will constantly strive to improve my content

knowledge, my pedagogy and my understanding of my own strengths and challenges,

and the strengths and challenges of my students.

Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching

Page 5 of 5

References Keast, S., & Marangio, K. (2014). Pancake Purpose [Video File]. Retrieved from

http://foedac.monash.edu/p2k5ud2p7ey/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMo

de=normal

Keast, S (2014) Semester 2 Lecture 6 Pedagogical Content Knowledge PowerPoint

Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do. New York, NY: Routledge

Morshine-Dershimer, D. & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and source of teachers

pedagogical knowledge. In G. Gess-Newsome (ed.) Examining Pedagogical

Content Knowledge (pp.21-50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers

Nagel, M. C. (2013). Student learning. In Teaching: making a difference (2nd ed.)

(pp.74-111). Milton, Queensland, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia